Trump Impeachment Part Duex

[Ibanez]

Alpha isn't imaginary and Chris Kyle is dead. If we're choosing dead snipers, then I choose Carlos Hathcock.

If it needs to be an active member of this board, then I choose BDK as my second and SD as my third.

Mmmm......good choices. I didn’t expect that out of you.

I'm an enigma.

[AZGrizFan]

Mmmm......good choices. I didn’t expect that out of you.

I'm an enigma.

Wrapped inside a riddle.

[Ibanez]

Maybe we just go to thumb wars? Would be easier.

Agreed. And maybe grab a beer afterwards? 1st round is on me.

[AZGrizFan]

Maybe we just go to thumb wars? Would be easier.

Agreed. And maybe grab a beer afterwards? 1st round is on me.

Awesome. I’m in.

I’ll drive.

[Ibanez]

I think at best Trump has accomplice liability for the actions of Jan 6. His words and actions inspired and encouraged the riot. If you think otherwise, then I really don't know what to say. You're just ignoring the obvious and are being intellectually dishonest.

If true, why wasn't the NG called and who is responsible?

I'm not sure i'm following your logic. If that's true, then why didn't Trump set in motion for the NG to be there? There are Republicans on record saying Trump had no part in eventually bringing in the NG.

But, that's neither here nor there. A person is responsible for their words and the impact it could have. People are arrested and convicted b/c their words encouraged a crime. Why's this any different?

[Ibanez]

Agreed. And maybe grab a beer afterwards? 1st round is on me.

Awesome. I’m in.

I’ll drive.

HUZZAH!

[SDHornet]

Everytime someone utters the word "fight" they don't mean physical violence.
You don't know jack about testicular fortitude..

True, not every time someone says the word fight that isn't the expected outcome. But when you have a powerful person, who is amping up supporters that are already known to be violent. When you are using proactive words and talking about the threats to their country, and you're calling them patriots and such. When you are being told by your own administration that these people are primed and ready and are dangerous.

When you take all that into consideration, the opportunity for disaster exists. Beyond a reasonable doubt, one can conclude that those supporters would engage in what they truly believed was a threat to their country.


It seems to me that you don't WANT to consider any other outcome. You aren't open to it, and probably because you're such an ardent supporter.



Edit - I know you don't have the guts to challenge your own opinions or accept hard truths. That's evident. It's as plain as the big, hook nose on my face.

Can we hold all politicians to this standard and not just the ones that we are ideologically opposed to?

[Ibanez]

Also - is it normal for impartial jurors to give advice to the defendants lawyers?

[SDHornet]

If true, why wasn't the NG called and who is responsible?

I'm not sure i'm following your logic. If that's true, then why didn't Trump set in motion for the NG to be there? There are Republicans on record saying Trump had no part in eventually bringing in the NG.

But, that's neither here nor there. A person is responsible for their words and the impact it could have. People are arrested and convicted b/c their words encouraged a crime. Why's this any different?

Agreed, now apply that standard to both sides of the aisle.

[Ibanez]

Trump's defense is doing a good job of showing Democrats say the word " fight".

Now, let's see the fight, riots, vandalism, crimes that occurred immediately afterwards and the perpetrators admission that they were following those Democrats.

[SDHornet]

Well if we’re going to pick imaginary people, I choose Chris Kyle. Either pick someone who posts, or I’m going to claim victory by default.

Alpha isn't imaginary and Chris Kyle is dead. If we're choosing dead snipers, then I choose Carlos Hathcock.

If it needs to be an active member of this board, then I choose BDK as my second and SD as my third.

I'll bring tacos.

[AZGrizFan]

Alpha isn't imaginary and Chris Kyle is dead. If we're choosing dead snipers, then I choose Carlos Hathcock.

If it needs to be an active member of this board, then I choose BDK as my second and SD as my third.

I'll bring tacos.

It’s officially a party!

[SDHornet]

Trump's defense is doing a good job of showing Democrats say the word " fight".

Now, let's see the fight, riots, vandalism, crimes that occurred immediately afterwards and the perpetrators admission that they were following those Democrats.

We had a whole summer of it. You forget already?

[Ibanez]

I'm not sure i'm following your logic. If that's true, then why didn't Trump set in motion for the NG to be there? There are Republicans on record saying Trump had no part in eventually bringing in the NG.

But, that's neither here nor there. A person is responsible for their words and the impact it could have. People are arrested and convicted b/c their words encouraged a crime. Why's this any different?

Agreed, now apply that standard to both sides of the aisle.

I'm more than happy to. Saying the word "fight" isn't wrong. But show me A democrat telling his/her supporters for months that they only lose b/c of fraud and that the country is doomed unless they win. Show me the Democrats telling militia groups to stand ready in case they lose? Show me the Democrat, inviting supporters to a rally on the very day that his loss is confirmed and urge his supporters to do something b/c the country is in danger. All the while, knowing that there is a danger that these people can once again become violent, like they've already shown.

The Democrats in the summer of 2020 are responsible for any carnage or crime that was committed by a person that was responding to their call. No doubt. But I don't think you can find a Democrat who has whipped their supporters up into a violent frenzy, have them come to the Capitol on an important day and tell them that their country is in danger and they have to go to the Capitol to give the Democrats support. He chided Mike Pence and then there's video of MAGA shouting to hang him and then they're looking for him in the Capitol.

Republican or Democrat, it makes no difference to me. If you whip up a crowd into a frenzy, especially after months of telling them their country is in danger and their election was rigged, then you should be held responsible for their actions - especially when those arrested are all saying that they were waiting for your orders or were looking to you for guidance.

[BDKJMU]

Everytime someone utters the word "fight" they don't mean physical violence.
You don't know jack about testicular fortitude..

Every time someone utters the words “stand down and stand ready” when referring to a terrorism organization they don’t mean physical violence.

Wrong- fuck Canada.

[Ibanez]

Trump's defense is doing a good job of showing Democrats say the word " fight".

Now, let's see the fight, riots, vandalism, crimes that occurred immediately afterwards and the perpetrators admission that they were following those Democrats.

We had a whole summer of it. You forget already?

I didn't forget. I've been consistent - any elected official that encouraged a riot should be held to account. I'm not sure why you would expect otherwise from me.

It makes no difference to me.

[Ibanez]

Every time someone utters the words “stand down and stand ready” when referring to a terrorism organization they don’t mean physical violence.

Wrong- fuck Canada.

What's your beef with Canada, eh?

[SDHornet]

We had a whole summer of it. You forget already?

I didn't forget. I've been consistent - any election official that encouraged a riot should be held to account. I'm not sure why you would expect otherwise from me.

My question was more to the general audience and not you specifically. I haven't tuned into any of the impeachment nonsense, but from the headlines I see it's all the typical gaslighting "Orange Man Bad" stuff without acknowledging the violence that was encouraged this past summer by the other side. And no, they are not the same but we didn't get to the Jan 6th Riot in a vacuum.

[AZGrizFan]

Agreed, now apply that standard to both sides of the aisle.

I'm more than happy to. Saying the word "fight" isn't wrong. But show me A democrat telling his/her supporters for months that they only lose b/c of fraud and that the country is doomed unless they win. Show me the Democrats telling militia groups to stand ready in case they lose? Show me the Democrat, inviting supporters to a rally on the very day that his loss is confirmed and urge his supporters to do something b/c the country is in danger. All the while, knowing that there is a danger that these people can once again become violent, like they've already shown.

The Democrats in the summer of 2020 are responsible for any carnage or crime that was committed by a person that was responding to their call. No doubt. But I don't think you can find a Democrat who has whipped their supporters up into a violent frenzy, have them come to the Capitol on an important day and tell them that their country is in danger and they have to go to the Capitol to give the Democrats support. He chided Mike Pence and then there's video of MAGA shouting to hang him and then they're looking for him in the Capitol.

Republican or Democrat, it makes no difference to me. If you whip up a crowd into a frenzy, especially after months of telling them their country is in danger and their election was rigged, then you should be held responsible for their actions - especially when those arrested are all saying that they were waiting for your orders or were looking to you for guidance.

Surely you’re kidding in the first paragraph.

[UNI88]

Mmmm......good choices. I didn’t expect that out of you.

I'm an enema.

Interesting ...

[BDKJMU]

Wrong- fuck Canada.

What's your beef with Canada, eh?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-are-pr ... 1601485755

Some articles you pull up will say "white nationalist" which is complete baloney. Ever heard of a white nationalist group with a black Latino leader, and double digit (according to Illinois professor who has studied them) minority membership?

Far right? Yes. Violent? Somewhat. But they are no more of a terrorist organization than BLM...

[UNI88]

True, not every time someone says the word fight that isn't the expected outcome. But when you have a powerful person, who is amping up supporters that are already known to be violent. When you are using proactive words and talking about the threats to their country, and you're calling them patriots and such. When you are being told by your own administration that these people are primed and ready and are dangerous.

When you take all that into consideration, the opportunity for disaster exists. Beyond a reasonable doubt, one can conclude that those supporters would engage in what they truly believed was a threat to their country.

It seems to me that you don't WANT to consider any other outcome. You aren't open to it, and probably because you're such an ardent supporter.

Edit - I know you don't have the guts to challenge your own opinions or accept hard truths. That's evident. It's as plain as the big, hook nose on my face.

Can we hold all politicians to this standard and not just the ones that we are ideologically opposed to?

[Ibanez]

What's your beef with Canada, eh?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-are-pr ... 1601485755

Some articles you pull up will say "white nationalist" which is complete baloney. Ever heard of a white nationalist group with a black Latino leader, and double digit (according to Illinois professor who has studied them) minority membership?

Far right? Yes. Violent? Somewhat. But they are no more of a terrorist organization than BLM...

I agree. they're a dangerous group and our leaders shouldn't be giving them support.

Or telling them to Stand By and Stand Read in case he/she loses an election.

[Ibanez]

I didn't forget. I've been consistent - any election official that encouraged a riot should be held to account. I'm not sure why you would expect otherwise from me.

My question was more to the general audience and not you specifically. I haven't tuned into any of the impeachment nonsense, but from the headlines I see it's all the typical gaslighting "Orange Man Bad" stuff without acknowledging the violence that was encouraged this past summer by the other side. And no, they are not the same but we didn't get to the Jan 6th Riot in a vacuum.

We certainly didn't get here in a vaccum. Agreed.

It seems i'm one of the few people here that has no problem saying any politician that did what Trump is accused of should be punished.

[SDHornet]

My question was more to the general audience and not you specifically. I haven't tuned into any of the impeachment nonsense, but from the headlines I see it's all the typical gaslighting "Orange Man Bad" stuff without acknowledging the violence that was encouraged this past summer by the other side. And no, they are not the same but we didn't get to the Jan 6th Riot in a vacuum.

We certainly didn't get here in a vaccum. Agreed.

It seems i'm one of the few people here that has no problem saying any politician that did what Trump is accused of should be punished.

Eh, what he said leading up to the event deserve scrutiny. I don't buy into the idea that he was directly behind/incited the actions of individuals. There would be other legal ramifications if so. His speech on Jan 6th indicated a peaceful tact and not a violent one. Also if it was cut an dry, you'd see more than the spurned anti-Trump Senators jumping on the vote for impeachment.

All in all a complete waste of time that will only embolden Trump and the "Trumpist" movement further.